In the run up to the Civil War Dred Scott became the unlikely focal point of the nation, a slave who dared challenge his being a slave, only to be told by the United States Supreme Court that he had "no rights that a white man was bound to respect." In other words, he was not a person. The truth spoken in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, did not apply to him. And since he had no rights, he could be denied anything, including his own life, as so many of his race commonly were. Today it is evident, it is self-evident that that the US Supreme Court was gravely mistaken. How many lives did that decision destroy? Over one hundred years later, the Supreme Court held that the so-called "non-viable" unborn were not persons either. They had no rights that anyone was bound to respect - they too could be denied life itself. Dred Scott "comes back" to argue before a high court that his clients, the unborn, are persons just like him. Who has greater moral authority to do this? It is a case you must decide.